BX 

4705 



»> >>'> 



i> > > > 



/-> > ^^ 



> > » > >>J> 



> >» 



. >> » 



> > 



> )» > 

, > • >) ' 

, > > >:> 
, > > > oj 

>> ^:» 

► >'» 
. .» > 
> , >^>» > 



> 


) ^» ' 


.)> 


» 


> 


> » . 


)> 


>^ 


> ' 


> * y> 


>> 


>■> 


> 


J > 


>> 


» 












2»> > 



f LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 






j7^../7,.H...3..A..1' 



I UNITED STATES OF AJIKUICA.J 






3> :>»:> 












^ ^ ^ > 






> > ^ _3> > 



"3 »^ J> 



^ » » ^» > 

> > >:> » » i^ 



> > :j 

> > > » -> 
^ > *> >> 



* > 



•^ > > ^ > 






- » > J -^ 



>- ^ -^/^> ^.^ 












ri 



>> s> 



i» j>. 









>> >^ 

>> >:> 






>> • 
> > > > 



» > -> 



» >;!;>'»-^ 



> > > 



» > »■ • 

> > ' 



'^ > 












>» » 

> • >^ 



> > > > 



^ 



13 


. > > > 
> > > > 


« 


^> >> » 




> > 

» > > 

» "> > > 


5 ' > 





REMARKS 



ox THE 



CATHOLIC LAYMAN'S 



X^XSiriLV^XT aZAIEIlTAT2t€>XT. 



BY WILLIAM VINCENT HAROLD, 

PAHTOB IV ST. MABT'«. ' ' 



** In iiiror brevis est ; animum irg« : qui, nisi paret, 
*' Impent : hunc fntnia, hunc tu compe«ce cateni." 

Hob. Ep. lib. i. ep. 2. 

" He'» in his fit now ; ajid does not talk after the wisest." 

SjUKsptABS — Tempe$t. 



PHILADELPHIA; 
PUBLISHED BY BERNARD DORNIN. 

182-2. 



,0^ 



m^^ikOiXS 



ox THE 



CATHOLIC LAYMAN'S DESULTORY EXAMINATION 



SiK, 

The public and yourself will easily imagine how mv 
scribbling vanity must have been wounded, wlien my eye 
rented on tlie following passage in your Desultory Exinni- 
tuUion: '* I may lauji;h to scorn at the puny efforts of the 
writer of twenty-six pages in twenty-eight days/' Such 
no doubt, has been their eflcct. Vou have been laugh- 
ing ever since the appearance of the puny writer's 26 
pages, and the poor mortified author has been constantly 
annoyed by the report of your more than ordinary good 
lunnour. It would have been a valuable addition to our 
fine galleiy in this city, had you permitted some one of 
our excellent painters to fix that laugh on canvass. But. 
though laughing is a good thing, tliere may be too much 
of it, and the serious mood w ill have its turn. The public 
have had full time to read your book of desultor)' remarks 
and to commit to memory the precious extracts, the flowers 
cidled from that odoriferous bouquet so generously dis- 
tributed gratis by the laughing canonist. May I be per- 
mitted to orter for your amusement a few pages more.^ 1 
could assign fifty good reasons, in addition to that of not 
interrupting your merriment, for having so long denied 
myself the pleasure of addressing to you and to the public 
a few remarks on your last publication. 



Before I coniinencc my review of this singular pro- 
duction, which has received the new nanio of '* Para- 
graplis in a Passion," perniit me to unite wiili the read- 
ers in our good city, and some \'ew out of it, in express- 
ing our admiration of your consunuiiale skill in book- 
making. The art is of modern date, and you have al- 
ready advanced it to perfection. Without any aftectalion 
of abstruse research, without the help of learned notes, 
antiquated legends, or the other well-known stratagems 
of the book-making school, you have contrived, by a ten- 
times-repeated publication of your own " rejected ad- 
dresses," and worn-out observations, to extend to fifty- 
three pages a pamphlet, which might, by the following 
simple process, be reduced to three. Expunge what you 
have drawn from your Address and Rejoinder^ leave out 
what you have quoted from parliamentary debates, and 
extracts from pamphlets not written by yourself, and 
I undertake to reduce the remainder to three pages, 
which shall be in your own words, in the same type, and 
include your Latin proverbs. I further engage to prove, 
that in these three pages there is not one original re- 
mark, not one sentence which has even the appearance 
of novelty or freshness. Should I succeed in condensing 
my present reply into as small a compass as my last, do 
not, as you respect the dehcacy of the ladies, exclaim as 
you did in your desultory pamphlet, " What a costiveiiess 
of his muse!" If Apollo had not emptied his quiver on 
the multitude of boobies who have invaded his empire, 
such an insult offered to a goddess could not have passed 
unavenged. A costive muse! Surely some future avenger 
of Ireland's literary fame will save her long and brilliant 
line of worthies from all connexion with this writer's name. 

"Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor." .IEseis, lib. 4. 



6 

But, leaving the Muses to tlieir natural protectors, it is 
time to cite the polished Layman to an earthly tribunal, 
to answer charges at least as important as the imputation 
of costivencss to an ethereal being. 

I am aware that the public must feel perfectly indif- 
ferent to every thing of a merely personal nature between 
yourself and me; and when the controversy had ceased 
as to the canon law question, I could have had no in- 
ducement, and certainly felt no wish, to write another 
line. Your first address was a challenge to the Catholic 
priests of this city. The subject was one of vital impor- 
tance to our religion. Had we been silent, the public 
must have inferred, either that we agreed in opinion with 
you, or that we felt ourselves unprepared to answer your 
arguments, and to justify the proceedings which had been 
taken in the case of Mr. Ilogan. AVe entertained no 
doubt that your view of tlie subject was erroneous, that 
your|>rificiples and interference tended to subvert the es- 
tablished discipline of our church, and we could discover 
nothing of strength or plausibility in your arguments. 
Knowing that a vast majority of those, for whose perusal 
your pamphlet was intended, are of that class in society, 
who look up to an author as to a superior being, and re- 
ceive opinions in print which they would laugh at in con- 
versation: seeing that our religion was exposed to public 
scorn by the intermeddling vanity of some of its nominal 
members, and the ujiprincipied designs of others: per- 
suaded that the Catholic church in those states must 
soon fall to ruin, that her character must sink, and her 
faith be corrupted, if those who should be guided by her 
wisdom, and ruled by her authority, shall publicly pre- 
sume to set up their own crude opinions in opposition to 
both: finding that her divine rights, and her most sacred 



6 

discipline, had become a common subject of discussion 
with ignorance of every grade, that the canon law was 
an instrument which every one could play on from the 
kitchen-maid up to the Catholic Layman, — we thought 
it high time to rescue the pearl from such hands. Your 
challenge afforded us an opportunity of rebuking this 
presumption, and reclaiming to common sense the vic- 
tims of this folly; and we owed it to the honour of our 
ministry, to the best interests of our religion, and to the 
salvation of those committed to our care, not to decline 
that challenge. 

Had you been prepared to discuss the question like a 
scholar, the controversy might have been interesting from 
its novelty, and must have led to a more correct view of 
the subject than had been generally taken of it by the 
public: but we had scarcely opened the discussion when 
you fell off into abuse, cast yourself on that class of read- 
ers who delight in scandal and are indifferent to truth, 
and thus let in the light on the poverty of your mind and 
the nature of your cause, which, if good, requires no 
such support, and yet has never been upheld by any 
other. Indeed I had been warned by those most inti- 
mately acquainted with you, that if I attempted to con- 
trovert your opinions, I must be prepared to endure a 
good deal of personal abuse. But this did not appear to 
me a sufficient reason for declining a contest to which a 
sense of duty called me. I am not to be moved by the 
ravings of an angry man. I feel secure, and of that you 
are well convinced. My public and private life is pretty 
well known to each of the contending parties, and so un- 
conscious am I of having done any thing to forfeit their 
esteem, that I could, with perfect safety, submit my cha- 
racter to the decision of either. You will therefore act 



wisely in reserving your scurrility for some one who can 
feel it. The means to which you have resorted in the 
vain hope of injuring me, evince a badness of heart which 
nothing but an insane disregard for pubHc opinion could 
have tempted you to display. Your most intimate acquaint- 
ances can no longer converse with you in safety. All 
confidence between men must cease, all social intercourse 
must terminate, if private conversations may be dragged 
into public view, whenever a vindictive man can make 
them subservient to his purposes. But the interests and 
happiness of society, good feeHng, honour, and morality, 
are so opposed to this new style of controversy, that few 
will venture to follow your example. Your letters to 
Baltimore, to procure whatever information might be col- 
lected in that city regarding me, exhibit your industry 
to great advantage. You are not rising either in the opi- 
nion of your friends or in public estimation. 

It could have been in no way discreditable to you, to 
be found not deeply versed in questions of ecclesiastical 
discipline. It is a subject so foreign to the literary pur- 
suits of laymen, that few among them ever think of ap- 
proaching it. Had you, on finding the letter and spirit 
of the canon law against you, candidly admitted that you 
had taken a wrong view of the case, and had you ceased 
to support a cause whose unsoundness had been demon- 
strated to you, such a mode of proceeding would have enti- 
tled you to the respect of every man of sense and probity. 
Appearances were, in my opinion, so decidedly expres- 
sive of a partial feeling for one of the parties, that I could 
not bring myself to regard you as an unbiassed mediator; 
yet, had you so acted, I should have felt it my duty to re- 
tract every word in my first reply, which appeared to 
question the sincerity of your views. But when I found 



that refutation onlj quickened your zeal in support of a 
cause which you had failed to defend — when I found you 
verifying the anticipations of those who knew you, by 
substituting insult for argument — when I found you yield- 
ing to the impulse of mortified vanity, and regarding every 
man as an enemy in whom you discovered any appear- 
ance of zeal for the cause which you opposed — when I 
found you stooping to the mean malice of hbelling in 
newspaper advertisements, I thought it right to convince 
you that you had nothing to gain by this illiberal conduct. 
Another would have whipped you with scorpions, but I 
merely put a little wire in the lash, and that you have 
felt it is pretty evident from the loud laugh so well kept 
up from the beginning to the end of your Desultory Exa- 
mination. I did not know that this was the natural effect 
of such an apphcation until I had the advantage of pe- 
rusing your sublime and philosophical preface to the Vin- 
dicise Hibernicae. The following sample may enable my 
readers to form some notion of its merit. "Has not an 
Irishman, like an Englishman, senses, affections, pas- 
sions? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, 
do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And 
if you wTong us, shall we not defend ourselves?" One 
who might appeal to such evidence of talent, could not 
surely be affected by a little blundering in a paltry ques- 
tion of canon law. A man of real acquirements can af- 
ford to be thought ignorant of many things; but a mere 
pretender to learning, conscious that he knows nothing 
well, cannot endure to be touched, lest his baseless fabric 
should fall to pieces. I thank you for pointing out the 
defects of my style, and shall try to correct them; but 
how may I hope to obtain your approbation, when I am 



9 

told, that such is the fastidious deUcacy of your classical 
mind, that Junius himself could not please you? 

You are perfectly aware that I never attributed your 
advocacy of Mr, Hogan^s cause to any personal regard 
for that clergyman; yet you take a world of pains, in each 
of your pamphlets, to free yourself from an imputation 
which no one has brought against you. Mr. Hogan in- 
curred your displeasure, at an early period of your ac- 
quaintance, by hazarding an opinion on the Vindicise 
Hibernicse not quite in accordance with that of its com- 
piler; and he must not hope to have that offence easily 
forgiven, or speedily forgotten. Your attachment is to 
Mr. Hogan^s cause* and party, not to himself; it is to the 
subversion of Catholic discipline, the new-modelling of 
the Catholic church in these states — it is to do that here 
which our fathers died rather than consent to do in Ire- 
land and Englatid. I have charged you from the begin- 
ning with supporting that party, and you have now proved 
that I was justified in doing so. You are tired of wear- 
ing the mask, and I am relieved from the necessity of 
saying any thing more about it. In the investigation be- 
fore General Cadwalader to ascertain the strength of 
the respective parties, your signature appears in support 
of those who have driven the Roman Catholics from their 
church, and the question as to your impartiality is de- 
cided for ever. 

I can discover no material difference between us, as to 
the resignation of Mr. Madison, proposed by you in the 
year 1814. Your manner of getting clear of this pa- 
triotic sacrifice of the leader, presents an admirable spe- 
cimen of meditated confusion. The fact, as I have stated 
it, was mentioned to me by a gentleman of high respec- 
tability: — that about the middle of the month of Septem- 

B 



10 

ber, 1814, you printed a small pamphlet, in which you 
recommended the change in question; that you seemed 
alarmed at the step you had taken, although the pamphlet 
was anonymous; that you gave out but a few copies of 
it, when the news of M'Donough's victory and the defeat 
of the British at Plattsburgh reached Philadelphia; that 
your pamphlet was instantly suppressed, and that you 
next appeared lashing the federalists with your Olive 
Branch. So little doubt was there in the accuracy of 
this account, that the gentleman promised to let me have 
a reading of tlie pamphlet, but afterwards found that 
it had been mislaid or taken, as trifles of this kind gene- 
rally are. Were I not well acquainted with your unap- 
peasable temper, I should have no hesitation in giving 
you the name of this gentleman, and I can assure you it 
would be beyond your power to discredit him with the 
public. Let us now see how the affair stands, as detailed 
in your preface to the fifth edition of the Olive Branch. 
After a glowing picture of the disasters which marked 
the progress of the war in 1814 — Alexandria plundered 
— Washington in ruins — Baltimore marked out for pecu- 
liar vengeance — New York and Philadelphia trembling 
under the apprehensions of a similar fate — the federalists 
looking on with apathy, but, at the same time, declaring 
that " if the democrats compromitted the honour of the 
country by a dishonourable peace, they (the federalists) 
should take the power into their own hands — that the 
British ought not to treat with Mr. Madison^ who should 
be compelled to resign" — you then go on to state your 
own opinion, " that as the government did not exercise 
the energy and decision, that were necessary to control 
and coerce the refractory minority, it appeared far better 
to make a change, than let the country become a prey to 



11 

a foreign enemy. With a mind, harrowed up with these 
terrific considerations, I sat down to write on the 6tli of 
September. On a careful examination of the whole 
ground, the least of the mighty evils before the nation 
appeared to be, to submit to swallow the bitter pill pre- 
sented, and make a radical change in the administration. 
'This radical change, I thought ought to be introduced 
by resignation on the part of the incumbents.'' This can- 
not be easily reconciled with Mr. Carey ^s declaration 
that he never advised the resignation of Mr. Madison, 
who was at the head of these incumbents. But perhaps 
he will say, that the plan was yet confined to his own 
breast or locked up in his cabinet — the very next sen- 
tence closes that passage, and a retreat is impossible: 
" Some of my readers will smile at my arrogance in 
daring to suggest such a plan. Others will abuse my im- 
becility for the proposal to give an inch of ground.^^ 
Suggesting and proposing are words easily understood, 
and they express plainly as words can express any thing, 
that his plan was in the possession of his readers. On 
the evening of the 6th he wrote twelve or fourteen pages 
— laid it aside for ten or twelve days — in the interim the 
news arrived of the victory on Lake Champlain and the 
defeat of General Prevost's Wellingtonians — the embryo 
work was rejected, and the Olive Branch commenced. 
The facts, as stated to me, are natural and intelligible, 
and substantially admitted by yourself That you had 
conceived the plan is certain — that you had written it is 
certain — that you suggested and proposed the resigna- 
tion of the incumbents ) ou admit — that you feared the 
consequences of proposing such a measure accounts for 
the partial publication of the pamphlet; but had it not 
been partially published, had the secret been deposited 



12 

in your own breast, had you not been conscious that it 
was in the power of some one to give it to the pubhc, is 
it credible that you should have come forward wantonly 
and unnecessarily to avow yourself the author of such a 
plan? Would a man, not remarkably heedless of his 
own interests, a man depending on the public, a prac- 
tised politician, make such a confession to his then tri- 
umphant party had it been in his power to conceal it? 
Let those believe it who can, for my part I cannot. And 
what could have put it out of his power to conceal it, had 
the papers remained in his desk? Sir, you are a more 
cunning man than the world thinks you. Supposing the 
blunder to have been committed, yours was an excellent 
expedient. It prepared you to meet the danger from 
whatever quarter it might come. This was the retreat 
to which I alluded in my last reply. As to your Irish 
retreat I am altogether uninformed, and feel no wish to 
make any inquiry about it. 

Next in order comes your furious attack on my sup- 
posed inconsistency in having praised you as a writer in 
my first reply and censured you in my second. " Had 
no regard for truth, honour, or honesty withheld Mr. 
Harold, it would be presumed that a sense of shame and 
a fear of being caught in such flagrant contradiction 
would produce that effect.'^ My good laughing corres- 
pondent! pray look back to my first reply, from which 
you have so liberally extracted what you consider, or 
affect to consider, compliments and praises, and if you 
do not discover that I am laughing heartily, you may be 
assured, that you are the only one of my readers w^ho 
has not seen it. When I spoke of " the oracle of the 
manufacturers'' and the lucid exposition peculiar to his 
writings, and his acute, discerning mind, the irony is so 



IS 

broad, that I thought no one could mistake it. When 
in my last address I qualified your writings as turgid, 
assuming, and utterly deficient in mind and manners, I 
gave the same opinion seriously which I had given before 
ironically. Truth, honour, and honesty are perfectly se- 
cure, and there is no contradiction. I praised your de- 
fence of the Cathohcs of Maryland, and I did so from 
the impression which it left on my memory, for, I have 
never seen it since its first appearance. -Your cmise was 
good, your materials were good, and you succeeded in 
establishing the claim of the Cathohc settlers to a liberal 
and tolerant use of their power in that province. As far as 
my memory served me, I thought you did so ably, and I 
said so; and though the praise may have been hastily 
given, I do not mean to take it back, as you seem to 
value it. I am sorry I cannot in truth or honesty re-' 
tract the opinion which I have expressed and entertain 
of those works of yours which I have seen and exa- 
mined, and I think I have all your writings, with the ex- 
ception of the defence just mentioned. I should like to 
see it again, in order to be satisfied whether it deserves 
the . favourable opinion which I may have too hastily 
passed upon its merits. 

I expressed a wish to know Mr. Adamses opinion of 
the Olive Branch, and you have not thought proper to 
gratify me. You give an extract of a letter in which 
the ex-president apologizes like a gentleman for the lit- 
tle sparring which had taken place at his table. " I did 
not give the opinion as my own — but as the general opi- 
nion of this part of the country.^^ Pray, Sir, what opi- 
nion is Mr. Adams alluding to? This is the very thing 
I sought to know. The extract goes on: " The facts, as 
generally stated by you, I cannot controvert. They were 



u 

as grievous to me, at the time, as to you, and are lament- 
ed by me still as much as by you," and here ends the ex- 
tract. You leave us uncertain whether he alludes to 
facts mentioned in your letter, or those in the Olive 
Branch. When you were in the giving mood, I wish 
you had favoured the public and myself with the letter, 
and it would have been good policy either to have done 
so, or to have withheld it altogether, for, conjecture is 
busy about your reasons for putting us off with so mea- 
gre a ti eat when we were expecting a feast. 

The opinions to which you alluded in your first ad- 
dress, and which you qualified as gratuitous assertions 
and unworthy of notice, I had reason to think were the 
answers given by me in the Supreme Court, where I 
underwent a long and very minute examination on all 
the points which could affect the case under investiga- 
tion. I knew you had not been present on those oc- 
casions, but I had read in your address, that "you ap 
plied to J. R. Ingersoll, Esq. counsel for the Rev. Mr. 
Hogan, for his notes, with which he kindly favoured 
you," and that you had quoted from these notes a part 
of the Rev. Mr. Hurley's examination. How then could 
I have supposed you ignorant of what had occurred ? 
You now state, " if Mr. Harold made such declarations 
in court, with or without the solemnity of an oath, I had 
no knowledge of them whatever," and I have no difficul- 
ty in retracting the expressions I used, under the im- 
pression that you had that knowledge. You speak of 
my principal agent, whom in another place you call a 
miserable jackall; but you are mistaken. I must take 
the liberty of assuring you that I am not acquainted with 
such a personage as the jackall, and that I liave no 
agent, principal, or subordinate. Your writings supply 



15 

me with all the information I require. You compliment 
me too highly^ -when you place me on an equality, in 
finesse, with the three illustrious Cardinals, and I have 
too much humility not to dechne the honour; but I feel 
better pleased with the concluding passage of that para- 
graph. You say, " if Messrs. John Carrell, Joseph Sny- 
der, Charles Johnson, and Lewis Ryan, will testify on 
oath, that Mr. Harold did not treat Bishop Egan with 
great rudeness and indecency, then my moral feeling will 
lead me to make a public apology daily for one month 
in the National Intelligencer and the National Gazette.^^ 
You know these gentlemen intimately and long. I too, 
am acquainted with their worth, nor do I know four 
men, to whom I would more willingly commit what I 
hold dearest in the world. I cannot call on them to take 
an oath which I feel to be unnecessary. This is forbid- 
den by the Divine law. So convinced am I of their ve- 
racity, that I bind myself to abide by their answer to the 
question you propose, whether I treated Dr. E^an with 
great rudeness and indecency ? We are now at issue on 
a charge, which I affirm to be false. I require you to 
call these gentlemen to answer that question and to re- 
port that answer. If you wish, I shall request them to 
wait on you. The public will expect the fulfilment of 
your promise, and nothing can justify a refusal on your 
part. 

In want of better materials, you pick up an elec- 
tioneering address of the late lay trustees, in which these 
persons charge me with having "repeatedly perverted 
the chair of truth to the gratification of niy spleen, not 
only against the Bishop but against several of the trus- 
tees, and this in a manner so undisguised as to leave no- 
thing but their names necessary for its personal applica- 



iO 

lion — with having represented the Bishop as possessed 
of a devil and a curse to the congregation — and one of 
the trustees as having a soul as black as hell, and the 
whole body as a nest of scoundrels," — and you remark 
that " I have not condescended to reply to these charges." 
No, Sir, [ have not condescended to make any reply, and 
I have lived to very little purpose, if such condescension 
on my part could be looked for, or was at all necessary. 
If any person whose good opinion I valued could credit 
such charges, even on the oath of these people, I would 
perhaps have noticed them. I found the name of the 
Rev. Mr. Harley introduced on two occasions into that 
address, in which they praise his manly and open hosti- 
lity to me, and state him to have represented me at Rome 
as an heretical and schismatical priest. I had no doubt 
that this statement was false as the rest, but I thought 
it due to my reverend friend to afford him an opportu- 
nity to contradict it, and in a note addressed to me, and 
which he permitted me to use as I might think proper, 
he solemnly affirms, that the two statements attributed to 
him are false and without any foundation. This note 
was read at two public meetings in St. Joseph's. I found 
it also stated by these addressers, that Dr. Egan had inti- 
mated to Philip Smith his determination to suspend Mr. 
Harold. I waited on Mr. Smith, to inquire if any such 
intimation had ever been made to him by the Bishop, 
and this gentleman assured me that no such intimation 
had ever been made to him by Dr. Egan. You may 
now discover why I could not condescend to notice this 
address. There is one passage in this pubHcation which 
I think it right to notice, and which I might have passed 
over had I not found it reprinted in your last publica- 
tion. I allude to the letter of Cardinal Fontana, and 



17 

have to thank you for calling my attention to it. Many 
of my friends apprized me that attempts had been 
making for some years past, to create a prejudice 
against me at Rome, and advised me to take measures 
to counteract their mahce. But I had determined 
not to notice any thing which did not come to me in 
some official form, and I well knew, that if any charge 
of a serious nature should be advanced against me at 
Rome, I should be instantly called on to answer it. In 
this course I persisted, and, in all probability, should 
never have departed from it, had not business regarding 
my college at Lisbon, called me to Rome in the year 
1821. Being on the spot, and finding that the report of 
my friends was not altogether groundless, I demanded 
a full investigation of all that had been wTitten or said 
against me, and I obtained it. Justice is a sacred thing 
at Rome. My case was investigated at a full meeting of 
the Cardinals composing the Propaganda congregation; 
and it terminated in my obtaining the highest proof of 
their confidence, a patent of Apostolic Missionary, sign- 
ed by this same Cardinal Fontana, Prefect of the Propa- 
ganda. Sir, we have high authority for believing, that 
the man who, in his journey through life, acts on the 
principle, that right should be done, and truth should be 
told, without respect to persons, shall have enemies, and 
enemies will sometimes act basely: I have tried to act on 
on that principle, and I have not found its advantage, save 
only in my own reflections. 

You, Sir, would have opened for me another course, 
and other prospects. " You say I might have signalized 
myself as a pacificator, and have been revered as a bene- 
factor and an angel of peace to St. Mary^s church — that 
by adopting a conciliatory plan, and having Mr. Hogan^s 



18 

faculties restored, he would have gladly retired, and I 
would have been installed pastor, with the approbation 
of ninety-nine out of a hundred of the congregation/^ 
This, Sir, is all very fine, but it is very fine poetry. I 
did endeavour to conciliate; I reasoned for hours with 
the most influential leaders of the party; I availed myself 
of every opportunity to bring them back to such a peace 
as a Catholic would offer; but their passions were too 
deeply engaged, and nothing less could satisfy them than 
the prostration of Episcopal authority, and the triumph 
of insubordination. Such was the state of things prior 
to the 6th of January, when I met this people in St. 
Mary's church. I went there to preach Catholic doc- 
trine, and not to flatter the infatuated multitude. Had 
I told them the soft things which you would have 
recommended, no Bishop could ever raise his head in 
that church again. The loss of that particular church 
is as nothing when compared to the evil of sanctioning 
from the pulpit what no member of my religion could 
approve. I felt no temptation to purchase popular fa- 
vour with the sacrifice of principle. They heard from 
me the doctrine of the Catholic church, and they shall 
hear it again if ever we meet in the same place, however 
offensively it may ring in the ears of those who are not 
of my church, nor perhaps of any. I did not mention 
the words you give as an extract from my sermon — " The 
prince of darkness had stretched out his arm to mislead 
Mr. Hogan" — nor did I mention that gentleman's name at 
all in my sermon. I mentioned his name when requesting 
him to retire during celebration of mass, which could not 
go on in his presence. This was the only occasion on 
which his name Was uttered by me on that day. I am 
as certain of the words I pronounced, as I am of my ex- 



19 

istence. Others may have mistaken them in the fer- 
ment and irritation of the moment. This I find, is not 
the only instance in which my preaching has been mis- 
represented. But I must take leave to request my cen- 
surers to recollect, that I do not preach for their amuse- 
ment, but for their correction. I think it the duty of 
every pastor to examine what vices are most prevalent 
in his flock, and to lash them unsparingly, though each 
culprit should fancy himself specially addressed. Is truth 
not to be praised, because a liar sits before us.^ Are our 
discourses to be so framed, as not to alarm the conscience 
of the sot or the blasphemer.'^ Must we weigh our words 
and measure our steps, lest we touch the overweening 
vanity of some purse-proud reprobate.^ Must we cease 
to exhort our people to the observance of those religious 
duties which every believing Catholic knows to be indis- 
pensable, because men who have never been known to 
receive a sacrament in the Catholic church, have under- 
taken to upset its government and reform its discipline.'^ 
Sir, it is not the olive branch, it is " the sword of the Spi- 
rit,^^ which we are commanded to present to such sinners. 
I cannot but admire your tender regard for the native 
Citizen, your acute and persevering fellow labourer in 
the good cause of disenthralling the poor benighted Ca- 
tholic from the slavery of superstition, and enabling him 
to look this monster in the face, as the trustees cou- 
rageously express it. But much as I admire your sensi- 
bility, I could not but start (if any thing in these times 
should startle us) when L found the author of the Vindi- 
ciae Hibernicae holding up the train of Pacificus, and 
claiming respect both for the style and substance of his 
arguments. He is not, a,s you inform us, a Roman 
Catholic. His interference was the less to be expected. 



20 

In a question between Roman Catholics, and of a nature 
purely spiritual. lie is to us a stranger, and had no 
right to intermeddle in our affairs. But iie does not in- 
terfere as a religionist; his glance at the question be- 
speaks him as one nurtured in the old school of English 
persecution, and filled with the spirit which has wasted 
pur country. His argument is the same which for the 
last three ages desolated Ireland, and consigned the best 
of her children to exile or the gibbet. What was the 
ground on which the English persecutor took his stand? 
The acknowledgment, on our part, of a foreign spiritual 
supremacy. What was the reason advanced to justify 
the persecution? That the government of England could 
never be secure so long as the Cathohcs should submit 
to a spiritual authority not originating in the country. 
Look now to the letters of Pacificus, and you will find 
the Citizen travelling over the same ground with as much 
confidence as if the king's supremacy was still law in 
this land. He moves on slowly, and talks in a peaceful 
tone, but he comes up to his object at last, and tells you 
in terms sufficiently intelligible, that suspicion must rest 
upon you, until you shall have established a church in- 
dependent of foreign jurisdiction, that is, until you shall 
cease to be Roman Catholics. He more than insinuates 
that the recognition of a spiritual power out of these 
states is incompatible with their sovereign rights and in- 
dependence. He reasons as if he was still the subject of 
a government which legislates on religion, and not the 
citizen of a state which deprecates all interference be- 
tween man and his Maker. I believe Pacificus is the 
first writer, since the declaration of independence, who 
has ventured to hold up the religious tenets of any deno- 
mination of Christians as affording ground for jealousy 



21 

or suspicion to the rest of their fellow citizens. If I re- 
collect well (for I have not seen these letters since their 
first appearance in the Centinel) he offers to our imi- 
tation the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches of the 
United States, which separated, some years since, from 
the mother churches of England and Scotland. On 
this occurrence he builds his strongest argument, and 
appears to attribute the separation to motives of a po- 
litical nature. Had the writer of these letters been 
acquainted with our religious tenets, he could not fail to 
see, that such an act on our part would be of a nature 
essentially different from the cases adduced by him. No 
principle of Protestant faith subjects any one of their „ 
churches to the spiritual authority of another; hence 
there was nothing of a religious nature to prevent the 
American Protestant churches from declaring themselves 
independent of all foreign ecclesiastical control. So far 
from violating any Protestant principle by this arrange- 
ment, they did not act in opposition to the opinion of a 
single Protestant theologian. But with us, and with 
every Catholic church in the world, the headship of 
Peter over the whole church, is held, and has at all times 
been held to be, not of human or ecclesiastical, but of di- 
vine institution. It is an article of Cathohc faith, that 
the spiritual jurisdiction of the successor of Peter is co- 
extensive with the Catholic church; hence we cannot 
claim to be independent of that spiritual superintendence, 
without abjuring our religion and breaking from the com- 
munion of the Catholic world. That the Citizen is not a 
Roman Catholic, and unacquainted with our religious te- 
nets, is the only apology which can be made for proposing 
to us to commit an act of apostacy; but that you, who have 
held up to execratioii the efforts of English bigotry and in- 



22 

tolerance, to force your countrymen to pursue the course 
which Pacificus traces out for us — that you, who must 
have seen the fallacy of his comparison, and the conse- 
quent fallacy of all deductions from that comparison — that 
you, who have eulogized those who suffered as martyrs 
to this tenet, should stand by a writer, whose arguments, 
if good, prove that martyrdom to be madness, can only be 
accounted for by the blindness of passion, which sets 
truth and consistency at defiance. 
^ I really do not understand what you mean by the fol- 
lowing assertion : " He has not, however, detected one 
error in my quotations, (from the canon law) they all re- 
main uncontroverted.'^ If you would defend yourself 
from the charge of forging canon law, or giving the pas- 
sages in any other way than you found them in the book, 
you may spare yourself all trouble and uneasiness on that 
point, as I have no recollection of having made any such 
charge against you ; I merely proved that your canons 
were inapplicable to your case ; and I established that so 
clearly, that I think it quite unnecessary to return to the 
question. I did not understand that you questioned the 
fact of Dr. Con well being a bishop, and, therefore, 
thought it unnecessary to prove that he is one ; but, if 
you feel yourself prepared to controvert the fact, I shall 
find no great difficulty in removing your doubts, and re- 
plying to your objections. I would recommend you to 
read a good deal before you undertake to form your opi- 
nion, and not to rely with too much confidence on a few 
detached passages, which may be of no authority at pre- 
sent. You return again to the election of 1813, although 
I have assured you that I had not, and proved that I 
could not have had, any thing to do with that election ; I 
tell you now again, that I never suggested the plan of 



2S 

inultiplying the votes ; I tell you more, that I have no re- 
collection of having ever asked any man for his vote on 
any election, and it is well known to my friends, that I 
have studiously avoided interfering, in that way, on the 
last election, though the consequences likely to result 
from it were such as might have justified me in doing so. 
** We are given to understand (you say) by the Rev. 
Mr. Harold, that Bishop Carroll urged him to return to 
Philadelphia." A passage in the election address of the 
late trustees tempts you to doubt the truth of my state- 
ment, and the Cardinal's letter appears to you to shed 
new light on the subject. Sir, I never went out of my 
way to court the friendship of Dr. Carroll, nor of any 
man: but that illustrious individual professed a friendship 
for me, and greatly overrated my merits. Some few days 
before I resigned my situation of pastor in St. Mary^s 
church, I wrote to that prelate, communicating to him 
my determination to resign. 1 received his answer, dated 
Baltimore, 20th of February, 1818, the day previous to 
my resignation. I have a copy of his letter now before 
me, the original is deposited in the archives of the Pro- 
paganda at Rome. To remove your doubt as to the ac- 
curacy of my statement, I extract a passage from that 
letter, which, coming from such a man, is so flattering, 
that I might be charged with vanity in offering it to the 
public eye, were I not compelled in my own defence to 
do so. " You do me justice in believing, that I have en- 
deavoured, as much as I ought in discretion, to settle the 
unhappy differences of St. Mary^s church. When I un- 
dertook to advise the Bishop to hold an extra official con- 
ference with the trustees, it was with the fond expecta- 
tion of its terminating in friendly explanations and a good 
understanding between himself and his two reverend 



2i 

brethren on the one hand, and the trustees on the other. 
This expectation proved vain. My greatest apprelien- 
sion is your disgust, and a consequent determination of 
leaving Philadelphia, which indeed your letter indicates 
as a matter concluded on, and which, in my estiination, 
is one of the greatest misfortunes that can befal that dio- 
cess and the American church generally. The Bishop, 
as I have been informed by Mrs. Lucas, is to leave Phi- 
ladelphia next week in company with her father for Bal- 
timore. For hea'^en's sake, suspend any future proceed- 
ings or engagements till I can see him." Such an opi- 
nion, given by such a man, will enable the people of this 
country to form a proper estimate of those who have as- 
sailed me with every term of vituperation which our lan- 
guage could supply. Loaded with every species of in- 
sult, slandered, calumniated and defamed without measure 
or remorse, for doing that, which not to have done must 
have branded me a traitor to my God, it may be consi- 
dered too self-confident in me to have borne these asper- 
sions without holding up a shield which malice cannot 
pierce. But my wish is to stand or fall by my own acts, 
and not to prop myself up by the opinion of any man. I 
feel proud that I possessed the confidence of the greatest 
man our American church produced, or perhaps shall 
ever produce; but I should certainly have withheld this 
document from the public, did not your conduct render 
its production a duty. This appears to be the place for 
a reply to one of your questions. You ask me if I know 
any thing of an abusive letter sent to Rome against Dr. 
Carroll? I presume you mean by me. I answer, that I 
have never written one abusive word to Rome against 
Dr. Carroll. You think I am ambitious, and perhaps 
you are right: I can only say, that my ambition has not 



25 

yet stained the honour of the Catholic priesthood, nor 
injured the integrity of the Cathohc faith. Whatever 
ambition I have must look to Rome for its gratification. 
Now, Sir, there are ships saihng every day from this 
country for Genoa, Leghorn, or Naples; you have only 
to address this pamphlet to Rome, and by having it put 
into the post-office in any one of the places abovemen- 
tioned, it will reach that city. They understand the 
English language very well at Rome, and they will read 
what I have written. If they find but a single assertion 
not strictly true, you may make your mind perfectly easy 
about my ambition. The road to advancement will be 
closed for ever against me. You ask me if I did not try 
to force myself on Dr. Conolly as his coadjutor? I an- 
swer that I did not try to force myself on Dr. Conolly as 
coadjutor. You ask me if I did not attempt to exile the 
Rev. Mr. Hurley to Lancaster, in order to give posses- 
sion of his church to my uncle? I answer that such an 
idea never presented itself to my imagination, and that I 
never heard a word about it until you published the De- 
sultory Examination. I am sorry you did not continue 
your interrogatories, as this is the last time I shall indulge 
you with a reply. 

I have just looked back to page 24 of your pamphlet, 
where I find the following passage, which seems to de- 
serve some notice. " On the subject of ' recreant re- 
treats,^ Mr. Harold ought to have preserved a profound 
silence. He knows full well, that there are ' recreant 
retreats' of two different kinds, voluntary and involun- 
tary. I might dilate on this subject to a very great ex- 
tent, and, without retrospecting thirty-eight years, give 
him a Rowland for his Oliver. His ' atrocious conduct' 
would richly deserve this return. But ' I spare him/ 

D 



2Q 

He knows well what I mean — Sat verbuni sapienti." 
This is in the true daggering style: You know well what 
I mean — a word to the wise. I know, Sir, there is not 
one w^ord in this passage meant for me, yet so is it framed, 
that the public can suppose nothing else than that the 
whole passage alludes to some mysterious affair, some 
deed without a name, some retreat voluntary or involun- 
tary which cannot bear the light. I not only apprize the 
public that the passage I have quoted is not intended for 
me, nor in the n)ost remote degree applicable to me, but 
that I know for whom it is intended; that it is intended 
for a man who never retreated — who never had cause 
to retreat — who, though innocent and unoffending, was 
dragged from his country by ruffian violence — who re- 
turned to his country and dared the very man to notice 
his return, who in evil times, had power to destroy the 
life and liberty of any man in Ireland. That man so 
challenged, was my Lord Castlereagh, and my uncle is 
the man to whom you allude. I myself, is Lord Castle- 
reagh's house, gave notice to that oppressor, that his vic- 
tim was returning to demand that trial, which in 1798, 
he had sought for in vain. I had a similar notice pre- 
sented to Mr. Peele, then Secretary in Ireland. My 
uncle returned, and the prudent secretaries left him in 
peace. Like many other victims of that day, he not 
only dragged the chain of a merciless government, but 
had his character attacked by the hireling pens employ- 
ed to advocate its proceedings. To inflict torture, and 
bury their victims in dungeons, was not enough for the 
wretches who administered the affairs of Ireland at that 
period; they found a description of beings lower by 
many degrees than the executioner or the turnkey, lite- 
rary daggermen, to destroy what outlived the vengeance 



21 

of the government, a name, whose value that vengeance 
rather enhanced than injured. 

I wish, Sir, you would take the trouble to examine 
the meaning of words a little more carefully, and that 
passion should not meddle in the investigation. I do 
hope the public have a better opinion of my taste, than 
to think me capable of alluding to your bodily defects. 
I used the word hobbling as you used the word arena, 
in its figurative, and not in its literal meaning. To do 
a thing hobblingly is to do it clumsily or awkwardly, and 
applied in that way, I cannot find a better expression in 
the language to describe your second journey to the 
arena, than to say you hobbled into it. A friend of 
mine, who looked into the manuscript before it went to 
press, expressed some fear that you might take the word 
in its literal sense, and advised me to employ some other 
term. I told him I had no intention to offend in that 
way, and that I could not see why you should attribute 
such an intention to me, when the word was susceptible 
of a meaning which is not offensive. I strongly suspect 
your object was to throw yourself on the compassion of 
the public, and enlist their feelings against me. These 
little things are sometimes of vast importance, and show 
the adept in every-day controversy. Such, for instance, 
as prefixing the word native before citizen, in order to 
aggravate the crime of noticing Pacificus. We shall 
know the art in time, but some drilling is absolutely ne- 
cessary. After all, the public will do substantial justice^, 
and look through the native as well as the imported 
citizen. 

There is another passage in your pamphlet which 
throws more light on your character, than the public eye 
will long endure with patience. " The opinions freely 



28 

expressed by Mr. Harold of Dr. Corivvell, prove that he 
can and does wear ^ a mask/ A word to the wise/' 
Here again tiie hilt of the dagger appears. When on 
perusing your Olive Branch, I viewed you planning a 
change of administration, and such a one as would have 
been a kind of political revolution in this great country, 
and when I refl(*cted that the man who meditated this im- 
portant change, which General Washington himself, with 
all his profound wisdom, all his political experience, and 
his vast claims on the gratitude and confidence of his 
country, would not have ventured to suggest, and had he 
so ventured, could not, in all probability, have succeeded 
in effecting — when I recollected that the man who aspired 
to play such a part, was one who could scarcely have 
been unconscious that he possessed a shallow and un- 
cultivated mind, without any thing that deserves the 
name of political knowledge, either in theory or prac- 
tice, a man without any standing or connexions in the 
country, a stranger, a shopkeeper, I declare to you most 
seriously it was my opinion, that the man, who, with 
such disqualifications, could bring himself to propose that 
measure, or any measure originating with himself, to a 
country abounding with wise and experienced pohticians, 
must be either partially deranged, or so deficient in com- 
mon sense, that any thing he should say ever after, ought 
to be received with almost unlimited allowance. Such 
was my impression when first I read your Olive Branch, 
and I view it at this moment, as the best extenuation of 
your faults. When I followed you step by step through 
the present controversy, compared your professions with 
your acts, and marked the workings of your spirit, I 
have often asked myself, can this man be so entirely 
under the influence of self-delusion, as to persuade him- 



29 

self that he is acting rightly and that his view is peace ? 
and I have sometimes thought, however unwarranted by 
appearances, that in a mind so strangely constituted this 
might be the case. But the passage I have quoted from 
your last publication has put an end to my creduhty. The 
public will agree with me that peace is not your object ; 
a foolish determination to gratify a vindictive temper, 
makes you regardless of your own character, of public 
opinion and of truth. I never uttered an injurious word 
of Dr. Conwell ; I consider him a man of exemplary 
character, strictly moral and religious, and possessing 
more knowledge than three Catholic Laymen, could all 
their acquirements be united in one. What have you 
to gain by persisting in this course? Had you a real 
friend in the world he would try to save you from your- 
self. 

You have not given yourself time to reflect, or you 
never could have decided, that a simple question, put with 
a view to obtain information on a fact mentioned in your 
Vindicioe Hibernicae, was " scandalous for an Irishman 
and a Catholic priest— that it argues a boundless extent 
of malice — is the most odious feature in my reply, and 
proves me devoured by rage, passion, and venom, against 
the author.^' This is laughing with a witness. You re- 
late the story of a priest having been executed, when 
you were a child, for having married a Catholic and Pro- 
testant ; I thought it strange that an act of such atrocity, 
perpetrated, as you date it, within the recollection of 
thousands of my own cotemporaries, and in a city where 
I passed a great part of my life, should have made so 
slight an impression that I never heard it mentioned by 
any human being. I think it must be some story 
which you heard in the nursery, and which fastened on 



so 

your imagination, so firmly, that you could not bring 
yourself to question its reality. But why get into a pas- 
sion? History should be truth. The most accurate his- 
torians are found, in some instances, not as cautious as 
they should have been in the collection of materials ; but 
they seldom are, and never should be offended, when any 
one takes the trouble to direct their attention to facts ad- 
mitted by them, without that strict scrutiny through which 
facts should pass into history. Men of warm temper 
may be good poets, and eloquent orators, but they are not 
fitted for that calm, deliberate, and laborious investiga- 
tion, which gives to historical writing its weight and va- 
lue. My opinion remains unaltered as to the fact stated 
in the Vindiciae ; but this trifling mistake cannot affect 
the character of a work which has received such flatter- 
ing "testimonials." From the little that I know of what 
is called Irish history, I think I may assert, without 
much risk, that no Catholic priest has been executed in 
that country for having married a Protestant to a Ca- 
tholic. I am, however, open to conviction; and if a sin- 
gle fact of this kind sliall be established, I will take that 
fact to be the one recorded in your Vindicia3 Hibernicae. 
But why upbraid me with " a total destitution of national 
feeling .^'^ Why accuse me of being indifferent to the 
vv^rongs, and to the religion of Ireland.^ Sir, I am proud 
to call that country my own, but I should have less cause 
to feel so had she suffered less. Her wrongs are to Ire- 
land what triumphs have been to happier countries. To 
them she owes her fame, and fame of the highest order. 
You will here discover why I cannot feel indifferent even 
to your book. I would have nothing in it which cannot 
stand the strictest scrutiny ; nothing admitted as a fact 
which can be proved to be a fiction, as such a discovery 



31 

might tend to discredit the many other charges brought 
against the enemies of our country. When Europe be- 
gan to emerge from that darkness, which had stood, for 
ages, as a wall of separation between her barbarous 
tribes, when her nations were settling down into regu- 
lated forms of government, and modern times presented 
the first matei'ials for history, it was the unhappy lot of 
our country to have tempted the ambition and cupidity 
of England. The unprincipled Henry, and his blood- 
stained barons, landed on our coast, and from that hour 
to the present, Ireland has exhibited to the pity, disgust, 
and indignation of the world, a picture of misery, of 
crime, and oppression, such as no country but ours ever 
endured, and no power but England^s ever hiflicted. The 
detail of these atrocities is more like the register of a pri- 
son than the records of a nation. We have no history. 
Ireland has never taken the place, which her brave and 
good people should have held, among the nations of the 
earth. In arts and arms, in wealth and literature, she 
yields to many of her less favoured neighbours ; but in 
that which is far more honourable than victory or sci- 
ence, she is second to no nation that exists, or ever ex- 
isted. Others have acted greatly, but to her is due the 
better glory of having suffered greatly. She has, for 
more than three hundred years, withstood, " for justice 
sake,^^ all that the unpitying tyranny, and furious bigotry 
of England could do or devise to shake her religious 
principles and degrade her into apostacy. Sir, I cannot 
think of my country, and not feel the honour of being 
known as an Irish Catholic; nor can I think of Irish Ca- 
tholics, and not look down with pity and disdain on the 
base and unblushing degeneracy of those who have de- 
stroyed the only claim which entitled them to the respect 



i2 

of the world. And you, Sir, the author of the Vindicite 
Hibernicae! who could work yourself up to such a fever 
of indignation, when any one presumed to underrate tlie 
religious constancy of the Irish Catholic — you, who seem- 
ed to fret that the English language did not supply you 
with superlatives of sufficient length and energy to con- 
found the atrocious bigotry of those who pursued your 
countrymen to death, because they would not abjure the 
spiritual supremacy of the Bishop of Rome — you, an Irish 
Catholic, to lend yourself as an instrument to one who 
holds you and every man from your country in utter con- 
tempt, who laughs over the ruins of your character, and 
rejoices at this practical retraction of all that you have 
written as a Catholic; if you have an enemy on earth 
who wished you to outlive every thing like consistency 
of character, the wish of that enemy has been gratified 
by the part you have acted in this business. You may 
now pursue your downward course unwarned and unin- 
terrupted by me. I shall look after you no more, and 
cherish little hope of your return. 



-facllis descensus Avemi : 



Noctes atque ^es patet ati*i janua Ditis: 

Bed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras, 

Hoc opus, liic labor est. — iENEiD. Lib. 6. 

I did think better of the spirit and religion of my 
countrymen, than to suppose them capable of sacrificing 
both to the passions of one who never even affected to 
conceal his inveterate prejudices against the very name 
of an Irishman. If the designs of this man were not of 
a nature so pernicious, it would be amusing enough to 
mark how petty ambition can " stoop to conquer,'' and 
with what pride and triumph it struts when it conquers 
by stooping. This is a subject for moral anatomy, such 



33 

jjLS you may never find again; and as your temper leads 
you to try your hand at every thing, you may derive 
some amusement^ and even some advantage from dissect- 
ing it. As guardian of your hterary fame, you will per- 
mit me to advise you not to make such frequent use of 
the word egregious. I find this pet expression too often 
in your works, and have sometimes had my fears that it 
might become as noted as the idvodigious of a celebrated 
modern. I find by your answer to my quere about Cob- 
bet, that you did not treat the poor fellow as kindly as I 
had hoped, and that instead of a dinner, you merely took 
a glass of wine and bitters together. This circumstance 
was modestly suppressed in your answer. Perhaps you 
felt that the venison steak claimed a more generous re- 
turn. 



t 






E 



* 



% 



3^V7^r"/i 



5/ 






< C c< . 



.fc< (* ^c <r <^ 



< T C 






c «■ <, . ^st 
c < < <- 



<^ «C C C 









< «r «L ^ «: 









'c <:^'^ <: 









«: ^-' <- "< 






c ^r<: CMS ^^sBc: <' < <:<< <^'. 



;';-,^- 



car < «c cc « 






•-^ ^' «.^ -^ 









<c^< <iicr 



•c c<ar 



^ c <*^<^ ^ ^^ 



'«?c:^: ' ^^i 



< < ■« ■ 
c c <r <r^ 

C < < - 









CC C5: 






€L <: 






C CC C c<r c ceo 






< «c 






^x < c c c c: 









<^ cc <: ^r <L <r: <5 < 












c c ^-f "^ 

' c <c 

ire •«: «^c 5-> 
cc <r <: <:^ < <Circ <X 

: <r <r <rc- ^< 
^r. c^ < >. c 4C cc <c;x < ^ c 



- ■ ■^^ '- re -c <- < 



Vc^ <«^c c < C ^^ 

-^O. CC-C f c c ^ < 






<LC1 



. €r <i^C C C '^..V^^c r < - < 






^c<. >^X? ^<^^ ^^ 



c c^c 



<<L CC < 

c<^^ 

I tc cc 

_' ^< *c 
<< CC 
<c c<: 
"<:< cc 

C<. <^, 



c < 
C <J 

c ccc 
. < <r c ^ 

o 



V c<r^ - <c 



c«, <C ■c '-^ v«^ 

_ «- *^ «-< ',: 

cC^C CC C 

z «K <rc <■ < • ^^^ 

ct <3r < <r c^<: 

r<r c<: <<:<r^ ^ 
L<s cc: oc 

SILCC <c c< 

C4C cc. <^ c< *^, 

fee -« ^< , *^ ^ 
CC <^ ^*- ^~- 









:c <:C 

X- cc 

re 






CC <c c: 



^ <<r c«c<t. <rc 

-' c CO Vcc«-^ cc:^ c^ccc <^< 

— r^ (TC ^r^^'i*^' ' C-' Coerce «r 

= c c?^ <rcV^c cc <r^<cc <:^ 

— . r -<CcC «s:c-^ c <-<:-v<, -cc ^ 

<M^^^S^^ , ^ cc <i< .c .«Kr^'"Cc: c<- 

^i^^ r^ C c^t< ^ «CL ^ «• 'C^ c< 

^ ^ c c <rf c ^^r^ c «^^^>< ^ ^ 
< c ^ cc «:l c ^ C'5^3E.fc - 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS A 

ill III nil II mil III III I! 

029 819 571 9 



